If you stop to think about it for a moment, it is difficult to conceive of any system as being fully closed. All systems must have some interaction with their environments if they are to survive. Probably the most relevant way in which to look at the closed open dichotomy is to consider it as a range rather than as two clearly separate classifications. In this way, we can explain that the degree to which a system is opened or closed varies within systems. An open system, for instance, may become more closed if contact with the environment is reduced over time. The reverse would also be true. General Motors, from its inception through the early 1960s, operated as if it were basically a closed system. Management decided on the products it wanted to sell, produced those products, and offered them to customers. GM assumed that whatever it made would sell, and for decades it was right. Government was generally benign, and consumer-advocate groups were nonexistent or had little influence. GM virtually ignored its environment, for the most part, because its executives saw the environment as having almost no impact on the company's performance. While some critics of GM still attack the firm for being too insulated from its environment, GM has certainly become more open. The actions of consumer groups, stockholders, government regulators, and eign competition have forced GM to interact with, and be more responsive to, its environment. So while it may not be the model for an open system, GM is more open today than it was thirty years ago.